Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3589
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
MANJULA - Appellant
Versus
M. SAKTHIVEL - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 972 of 2011
Decided on : 08-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
R.P. Ramachanthiran, Adv., J.S. Murali, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the owner of goods and his representatives, as per the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147(1)(b)(i), Rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, IMT 37-A - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation for the owner of goods and his representatives, the interpretation of policy conditions, and the applicability of relevant legal provisions. The court held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the owner of goods and his representatives, and the violation of policy conditions does not absolve the insurance company from this liability.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Tamilselvan in a motor accident. The deceased was involved in the business of buying and selling Tamarind and died in a vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving. The issue revolved around whether the deceased and others travelled as owners of goods or as passengers, and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased and others travelled as owners of goods and coolies, and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation despite the violation of policy conditions. The court also modified the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal, enhancing it significantly.
Issues: The key issues included the nature of the travel (as owners of goods or as passengers), the liability of the insurance company, and the calculation of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions such as Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, and IMT 37-A. The court emphasized that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the owner of goods and his representatives, and the violation of policy conditions does not absolve the insurance company from this liability.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the award amount was enhanced from Rs. 4,07,000 to Rs. 9,40,160. The insurance company was directed to deposit the modified amount with interest, and the appellants were entitled to the enhanced compensation.
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
1. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. They filed the said Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs. 14 Lakhs as compensation for the death of one Tamilselvan. The first appellant is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the parents, appellants 4 and 5 are the daughters, appellants 6 and 7 are the brothers and the eighth appellant is the son of the deceased.
2. According to the appellants, the deceased was doing business of buying and selling Tamarind. On 11.07.2006, the deceased Tamilselvan purchased Tamarind at Madurai and loaded the same in the Van belonging to the first respondent and travelled along with the goods and his loadmen. At that time, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle on Pudukkottai Road in a rash and negligent manner and due to the same, the vehicle got capsized. In the accident, the said Tamilselvan and Others sustained grievous injuries. The said Tamilselvan died on the way to the hospital and one Karunanithi, who had travelled along with the said Tamilselvan as a loadman, died in spite of medical treatment. One Suriyamoorthy, who had also travelled in the said vehicle as loadman, sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. At the time of accident, the said Tamilselvan was doing Tamarind business and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and the appellants are legal heirs and dependants of the deceased.
3. The first respondent has filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent, but due to overloading and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants.
4. The second respondent filed a counter and contended that the deceased and Others had travelled in the vehicle belonging to the first respondent in violation of permit and policy condition. They travelled as passengers and not as owners or loadmen. As per permit condition, only 3 persons can travel in the Cabin. When the deceased and Others got into the vehicle, already there were two persons in the Cabin and more than 6 persons travelled in the Van. In view of violation of policy and permit condition, the second respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellants, one Geetha was examined as P.W.1, one Sooriyamoorthy, who had travelled in the vehicle involved in the accident as a loadman, was examined as P.W.2, one Mayilvahanan was examined as P.W.3 and the first appellant examined herself as P.W.4. and six documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the respondents, one Anantha Raman was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings and both the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that it is not clear from evidence whether the deceased and Others travelled as owner of goods or as passengers. In view of such finding, the Tribunal exonerated the second respondent Insurance Company and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation arrived at.
7. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants stated that the deceased Tamilselvan travelled in the Van along with 17 bags of Tamarind and the respondents have not produced any contra evidence.
9. A reading of Ex.P.1-First Information Report and the evidence of P.
